NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

It also appears to me the plane cut through the facade like a hot knife through butter, there was no give in the plane. It only exploded once inside,
just like you would expect from the likes of a bunker buster. The military have spent ages perfecting this technique with specially designed missiles,
yet on 9/11 we get that same effect they've been working on for ages out of a regular passenger plane.

Been through this before

The exterior walls of the WTC were NOT SOLID ! They were made of lattice work of beams bolted togather in 30 ft sections

The aircraft on impact sheared the bolts holding the sections in place

The plane pushed the broken sections out of the way. Once past the
exterior wall the plane would have impacted the floor slabs/interior columns. The fuel tanks were ruptured and the jet fuel ignited in massive fire
ball.

I have no experience as a pilot. Long before you were a wet spot, I did my best to shoot planes out of the sky, but those were not US commercial
craft. What does this have to do with PFFT's failed logic?
As you are an aircraft expert, perhaps you can describe how these aircraft would be modified, who would do it, and when, so that a seamless
transition from the standard aircraft to a souped up version would not be noticed by maintenence crews, refueling crews, schedulers, etc. Who flew the
aircraft immediately before the final crew? Did they notice any difference?
If you can't show this, then we are down to three possibilities for you to discuss.

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible.

The people with many years aeronautical engineering design experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say
it's improbable.

Yes. So... very slowly... they disagree. One set says it's not possible. the other says it is, albeit it's unlikely.

Deets leaves a 3% probability (not "possibility")

You do realise that a 3 per cent possibility is the same as a 3 per cent probability?

Clearly you don't understand why limits are set, nor have any expertise in the field to draw any conclusion except for your bias to blindly support
anything the govt tells you.

Your English is absolutely opaque. My experience in the field is my bias? What do you mean?

Furthermore I do understand why the limits are set. And my expertise is neither here nor there. What expertise do you have?

Those that have flown the airplane 1000's of hours, including the exact aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, leave a 0% probability.

Why do they disagree with Deets?

Where they all agree is that the speeds reported need to be investigated thoroughly as it is the "Elephant In The Room". It appears you are
not familiar with this phrase and instead spend your days and nights trying to get people to look the other way. It's not working.

We don't expect you to understand. But good luck trying!

You think I don't know what the phrase "elephant in the room" means?

I do. And ironically you're using it incorrectly.

Never mind. The fact that you don't have a theory and dribble out the usual truther nonsense about something not adding up, needing an investigation,
just asking questions, we may not agree but we do know something's wrong, buy a hat, or a DVD.... blah blah, says a lot about your level of
seriousness. And your motives.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
would you be willing to take that aircraft 150 knots over it's Vmo

For the love of god, can anyone really be this blind to something so overwhelmingly obvious?

I can't believe I even have to point this out, but it's no use suggesting that normal people would be unwilling to take a plane up to that speed
because they would be worried about their own safety, and that therefore the hijackers would be equally unwilling to do it.

Same thing applies, I was acting responsibly and rationally I would not risk injury to myself or persons on the ground.

You seem to think an aircraft can be precisely maneuvered at 150 knots over it's Vmo for more than a few minutes as were the aircraft observed
to impact the WTC.

Didn't have to. Terrorist didn't care if he hit the building dead center or even just clipped a wing as long the result was a very public display
of death and destruction/

Now you don't want to try it, even if empty with no building in front of you? Why?

Uh, why do you think? I don't want to die! And, just as importantly, I don't want to kill anyone else, on the ground or in the air.

Would you be willing to do it straight and level? You don't even have to maneuver it nor hold it at that speed. You can decelerate as soon as
you peg 150 over Vmo.

You still wouldn't be willing to do it?

Wise choice.

Ah, yeah, I know - wise choice - because there is a great deal of risk involved. But here is the difference -

I AM NOT A SUICIDAL MANIAC BENT ON THE PUBLIC DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS.

Pointing a gun is a very reasonable thing to do, however pointing a gun at an armed police officer is often suicidal, yet people do it every day.
Some do it just to commit suicide without needing to pull the trigger themselves.

So tell me, when are you going to post those failure analysis calcs that prove the plane disintegrates as soon as it passes a certain speed at a
certain altitude. Any minute now right? Or are we just going to hear a few more opinions?

So, you would fly a Gulfstream full of explosives at 900 knots on the way to your target? How does that achieve your objective?

Would you try to fly it at Mach 2?

Once the target was in sight, of course I would punch it. Mach 8 if it will do it. Imagine travelling hundreds of miles with a plane full of
explosives and you have the target right in front of you and you get shot out of the sky because you were trying to take it easy and not tax the
functional limits of the plane? I think you are having some problems wrapping your head around this suicide thing. If you are going to kill yourself
you don't follow the dosage instructions on the pill bottle.

I guess that means that those suicide carbombers also obey all the laws, dont speed, let the little ol lady cross the street, right before they reach
their target, and blow themselves up in the middle of a market place.

I mean why ruin a perfectly good suicide run by getting a speeding ticket
right?

Please try to limit your strawmans to one per page. More than 2 and people will think you have an agenda.

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible. The people with many years aeronautical engineering design
experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say it's improbable.

Yes. So... very slowly... they
disagree. One set says it's not possible. the other says it is, albeit it's unlikely.

Clearly you are not familiar with the concept of being conservative with your words if you don't have exact experience on type of equipment.

Your mental gymnastics won't fool anyone. But keep trying. )

my expertise is neither here nor there.

Clearly

What expertise do you have?

Once again (since it appears you don't remember the last time I answered this question)

More than you, less than Rusty Aimer and Dwain Deets.

Tricky, are willing to fly an aircraft 150 over it's Vmo? Are you willing to put your name to your claims as Deets has done?

Originally posted by ghofer
What airline would let a pilot over-speed their 767?

None. Because Airlines understand that limits are set for a reason. Exceeding such limits breaks the airplane.

But that doesn't prevent a pilot from doing it.

Are you insane? Why would anyone risk their life, their job, and the lives of everyone else on the plane to see whether a plane would break apart at
high speed? I think the airline might be a little peeved if you came back with their 767 after a flight and it had been damaged beyond repair. So
who would possibly accept your challenge? As I said, I don't think anyone disputes flying at 510 knots at sea level in a 767 is dangerous. The
question is when does the plane start breaking apart.

My cousin's husband is an engineer for Boeing. He develops mainly the safety systems. I asked him about this several years ago, because someone
brought it up on here. He said it was *SNIP*. He said not only was it possible for a Boeing Jetline to be flown at that speed and altitude, but that
it was below the total threshold that the aircraft can endure, in terms of speed and maneuvers. He said that a plane SHOULDN'T under any circumstance
fly like that, because you increase the chances signifigantly of some major systems failure. Naturally, no pilot working for an airline, unless he had
a serious death wish and wanted to take a bunch of people with him, would fly like that, because it is, to say the least, UNSAFE.

But somehow, I doubt safety was a big concern to the hijackers who were flying those jets, since they had no intention of a safe and happy end to
their flights. Thus, they had no qualms about what might happen as a result of their reckless and suicidal flying; that was, infact, the intended
outcome. Death and destruction.

So I am going to take his word on the matter, since he rpety much helps to design and work with these craft, over some site full of people I have no
way of vouching for.

Originally posted by ghofer
Are you insane? Why would anyone risk their life, their job, and the lives of everyone else on the plane to see whether a plane would break apart at
high speed? I think the airline might be a little peeved if you came back with their 767 after a flight and it had been damaged beyond repair. So
who would possibly accept your challenge? As I said, I don't think anyone disputes flying at 510 knots at sea level in a 767 is dangerous.

My friend of a friend who is a cousin of their Uncle is Dwain Deets, a Flight Director in charge of Flight Control Design at NASA.

My other friend of a friend who is the husband of another friends cousin is Capt Rusty Aimer, consultant on the 787 at Boeing and has thousands of
hours in the 767 at United Airlines, including the one which reportedly hit the south tower.

Why do debunkers often act as if they were experts in the thought processes of terrorists? Something to ponder.

Has it occurred to anyone that while a terrorist might have a reckless disregard for safety, he might still be concerned about reaching his objective
and be careful to fly within an aircraft's performance limits in order to be sure to reach his objective.

If I were a CIA operative I would tell my MKUltra dupe to fly to specs until he was ten feet in front of the WTC and then, if he felt like it, have a
ball and gun it.

It's really terrible when a truther has to tell a debunker how to run a black ops caper properly. I think it's the education system nowadays. People
are dopey.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.